This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Like many Greek islands, this used to be referred to in English by its Italian name, and this is important to note up front for the benefit of those using earlier books and maps. (Also, do not simply revert edits that include things other than the item you disagree with; in this case, it was important to eliminate an incorrect pronunciation. Check any geographical dictionary and you will see the pronunciation in English uses a as in father, just like Greek.) Languagehat (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Per reached consensus (after n edit wars :-)) foreign names of Greek islands belong to the end of the lead. The revert of your pronunciation correction was an error of mine, sorry. Alex2006 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
You are still not understanding the point. If it were just a matter of a foreign name, of course it would belong elsewhere. The point is that in English publications it was used as the English name of the island. The fact that it is also the Italian name is historically interesting but not why I placed it where it was in bold. I will not revert it until I get confirmation from you that you understand, because I do not want to get into an edit war, but if you do a Google Book search you will find books like New piloting directions for the Mediterranean Sea by J. W. Norie (1841) with entries like "THE ISLANDS CASO, SCARPANTO, &c. To the eastward of Cape Sidero, distant 27 miles, is the larger Isle of Caso, being about 1.1 miles long, and 5 or 6 miles broad..." I hope you will agree that this is in English, not Italian, and that this is clearly a former English name and deserves mention as such. Thanks for your consideration. Languagehat (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I understood your point very well from the beginning: it's you who don't understand what I wrote. These articles about Greek islands have been theater of many edit wars because of that. Many Greek editors don't want to see foreign names of these islands after the Greek one, period. The fact that ancient English books have been using the Italian (venetian/genoese) name for this island is for them irrelevant (as is irrelevant that these islands have been for hundreds of years venetian, genoese or ottoman possession), and the same is valid for the Turks: why at Istanbul there is no ancient English common name ("Constantinople") after the Turkish name in the lead, although there are thousands of old English sources that used that? You can revert the article without any problem, also because the one who put the foreign names after the Greek one in many of these articles was me, but here you go against the consensus, and I can ensure you that in some time someone else will came and revert it again, or cancel the foreign names altogether. What is better: have these names at the end of the lead or have them steadily canceled? In the meantime, to get some exercise you can put "Constantinople" in the lead of Istanbul after the Turkish name, and then see what happens :-) Bye Alex2006 (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand: "Many Greek editors don't want to see foreign names of these islands after the Greek one, period." In other words, it is blind nationalism which is indifferent to facts. Well, I don't want to get involved, so I won't try to revert it, but anyone who edits Wikipedia on such a basis should be ashamed of themselves. Languagehat (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)